-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 07:30:04 -0700 From: Falk, Donald M. <DFalk@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Some of this does raise genuine concerns, but to say that UCS "often tilts left" is like saying MoveOn.org "often disagrees with the President." My guess is that the anti-trafficking regs that have been interpreted in a way that discourages scientific publications will be straightened out, but that UCS will still be concerned that we are not doing enough to ensure a free flow of cash, weapons and weapons-related information to Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea, and the other bastions of free thought and scientific progress on the list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 02:11:41 -0400 From: Andrew Ackerman <amacker@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <4091D902.4050704@private> Declan: It's a damning argument the SciAm editors make here, as you point out. But they lost a lot of credibility for hosting a shamefully biased and arrogant forum in their magazine two years ago: an 11-page response to Bjørn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist." The forum is available here: <http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2- 1CEB-93F6809EC5880000>. It illustrates the way ideology has created a debate paralysis on the issue of the environment. This editorial highlights another node in that kerfuffle. Bush is presented without much nuance. He's just the worst environmental president ever. I'm not trying to stand up for Bush's policies, only point out that SciAm editors do indeed appear to have the bias you suggest. -Andrew Ackerman -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:57:49 -0400 From: Richard Herrell <rherrell@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <4091D902.4050704@private> Hi Declan, Your readers may be interested in Michael Crichton's comments about Scientific American given in his excellent lecture on the politics and science entitled "Aliens Cause Global Warming". He argues that the magazine is opposed to some scientific inquiry on political grounds, as he writes: "Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to? "When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down. "Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic. "Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church." http://www.pivot.net/~jpierce/aliens_cause_global_warming.htm Regards, Richard Herrell -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:49:23 -0700 (PDT) From: John Bartley or K7AAY@private <johnbartley3@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Believe that Sceintific Amaerican has a history of bias, as documented by Dr Jerry Pournelle and others. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:26:39 -0700 From: David Mercer <radix42@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Declan, if this whole hoorah is, as it appears, because they were ignored by the administration about global warming, perhaps the following tidbit will put things in perspective. You have no doubt this year at least seen headlines about the Japanese Earth Simulator, fastest (still?) single computer on the planet. Climate models run on it have been the first to have the resolution for hurricanes to spontaneously arise in a computer model from chaotic interactions (in other words, with no code to simulate them). No past computer climate models have been this acurate. So if this is the first model to ever have "natural" hurricanes, I am more than a bit dubious regarding the global warming predictions of past models. It's no secret that they haven't been able to simulate past weather, but this is a measure of how bad the state of the (poor) art that has driven the global warming outcry has been. As Galileo, Einstein and I'm sure many other scientist who were ridiculed in the past by the establishment, and later turned out to be correct, would testify, consensus among scientists, no matter how prominent, has nothing to do with truth. Calls to action with as scant of firm conclusions as are available at this time strikes me as no more than political grandstanding. Maybe they'll be less ignored when the models they're using to cry that the sky is falling are at least acurate to model the past. Premature, macro-economic actions, such as pondered by Kyoto, may indeed do more harm than good. No one knows, and we do indeed need to find out. But blind calls for "doing something" at this stage, and self-interested statements such as "this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences.... The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle" strike me as very disingenious. Sincerely, David Mercer Tucson, AZ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 15:03:54 -0600 From: Jerome Borden <jcborden@private> Reply-To: jcborden@private To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Dear Declan, A couple of thoughts from the "Science Front": Methane is reputed to be a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It is also known that termites produce more of it than cows. Termites thrive in the detritus found in overgrown forests with lots of dead wood. So, why is the "Environmental Lobby" so dead set against the "Healthy Forest Initiative? Global Warming and carbon dioxide is based on questionable science. What happens if hard water is allowed to dry on a surface? Water Spots. What happens if those water spots aren't wiped up right away? That's right; bring out the strong vinegar or CLS because normal washing won't hack it. This is evidence of a very active system that naturally sequesters carbon dioxide. Generally, it takes volcanic action to return it to the atmosphere. Now, if they are so concerned about global warming and mercury from coal (By the way, just when did that turn up and is it in all coal supplies?), why aren't these environmental Cassandras telling us to go Nuclear? Remember, the original "Hydrogen Economy" was based on the premise of cheap, plentiful electrical supply produced by thermonuclear energy. (Then, they found out how incredibly difficult controlled nuclear fusion is to achieve.) Yours Truly, Jerome C. Borden Layton, UT Not that far from the source of "Cold Fusion". [ ; --)) _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 04 2004 - 23:12:14 PDT